Solving the graffiti problem

The Office of City Attorney has for decades insisted that the U.S. Constitution hinders government efforts to make graffiti vandals account for bad behavior. That explains why City staff tracked 11,500 graffiti crimes during 2008, yet the Office of City Attorney prosecuted only 50. Yes, roughly 4/10 of 1% !!!

Problem is, the U.S. Supreme Court disavowed excuses in 1979 [page 2]. A basic principle of Constitutional law guarantees to government the power to maintain order. The Minnesota Supreme Court concurred in 1993.

The Mayor insists that imposing consequences on graffiti vandals is a "tough issue". Rather than solve the problem, City Hall is advised to use scarce taxpayer dollars to paint over the mischief, ensuring that vandals won't be identified in court.

To curb wasteful spending, the Governor cut state aide to Minneapolis. That put City Hall in a very expensive dilemma. Unrelenting, the council continues to insist that taxpayers spend millions of scarce dollars each year needlessly, cleaning the same do-do repeatedly.

A simple solution

The profile of taggers is 18 to 25, white, male, and from the suburbs. A simple solution for bad behavior does exist. The Berglin graffiti bill allows some graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as a civil offense, much like a parking ticket. Such acts are then processed in an informal hearing. Kids appear in Juvenile Court with a parent, where records are never public. Adults appear in a civil proceeding, where records are public. Either way, Restorative Justice programs are an option.

Supporters

The Berglin graffiti bill arose from the Lyndale Neighborhood Association and was approved by its general membership (23 April 2007). It is condoned by both the U.S. Supreme Court (1970) and the Minnesota Supreme Court (1993). Public debate is recommended by the DFL Ward 10 Convention (16 March 2009).

Questions

- Should we issue citations to graffiti vandals and identify them in court? or

- Should we waste another 60 years, spending millions of scarce taxpayer dollars needlessly each year, painting over the graffiti mischief solely to pamper the vandals with immunity?

The Graffiti Task Force,
Ward 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Wasting taxpayer dollars

The Governor insists that cities waste money needlessly. That is certainly true in Minneapolis. Graffiti is but one example.

According to the City of Minneapolis website (Graffiti Cleanup page), residents endured 8,428 incidents of graffiti in 2007. That number increased 69% in 2008, to 14,276.

The City Attorney admits that prosecution for graffiti crimes is rare. "We know that the number of cases presented to our Office ... are just a very small percentage of the total number of incidents of graffiti."[1] Why? City policy makes graffiti vandalism a game of Hide-n-Seek, for which the City Attorney is ill equipped. Out of sight, out of mind.

Most vandals know how to play the game, and how to remain outside the reach of the law. With no accountability for bad behavior, graffiti multiplies. Proof is in the numbers.

Graffiti cleanup "costs the city and its property owners $2.5 million annually."[2] Those are taxpayer dollars, i.e., total cost to the taxpayers. Policies that rely solely on taxpayer dollars to paint over vandalism do not solve the problem. Quite the contrary, such policies enable bad behavior. What's needed is a rule of law that makes vandals account for harm done.

A simple solution does exist. Allow some graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as an offense, much like a parking ticket. Then, process those acts in an informal hearing. Kids appear in Juvenile Courts with a parent, where records are never public. Adults appear in a civil proceeding, where records are public. Either way, Restorative Justice programs are an option.

Current policies on graffiti merely prove the Governor's point. A simple change in City policy can decrease graffiti incidents by 80%, within only a few years. A good starting point, then, in the budget battle with the Governor is to simply stop pampering vandals.

The Graffiti Task Force
of the Lyndale neighborhood
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

[1] Susan L. Segal, Minneapolis City Attorney. Email to Mayor and Council, 11 March 2009

[2] Tom Horgen. "Leaving their mark across the metro," Star Tribune, 14 Oct. 2006, p. A8

A tough decision?

In a letter to Mayor R.T. Rybak, we pointed out that prosecution for graffiti crimes is rare. That fact is confirmed by the City Attorney (see p. 2) . The reason is obvious. Graffiti is a game of Hide-n-Seek. Most vandals know how to play the game, and how to remain outside the reach of the law.

With no accountability for bad behavior, graffiti multiplies. Using tax dollars to paint over the problem merely enables bad behavior. A simple solution to the problem does exist. It harnesses creative powers of parents.

To solve the graffiti problem, the Council must allow some graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as an offense, much like a parking ticket. Then, process those acts in an informal hearing. Kids appear in Juvenile Courts with a parent, where records are never public. Adults appear in a civil proceeding, where records are public. Either way, Restorative Justice programs are an option.

We asked the Mayor to support an open dialogue on ways to draw parents into the graffiti solution. Surely, residents should be allowed to discuss graffiti policies openly, in public testimony, and to offer lawful alternatives.

The Mayor did not respond. Previously, he called graffiti "a tough issue."

The Graffiti Task Force,
Ward 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Letting neighborhoods rot

What follows is a response from the Cooper neighborhood to our request for a public hearing. It proves our point that only a change in City policy will solve the graffiti menace.

- - Reply - -
The Longfellow Community Council has taken the anti-graffiti issue into its own hands and with exemplary results. Contact the Anti Graffiti Coordinator, [...] for details on how it's handled.
- - - - - - - -

Mostly, the response is wishful thinking. According to the Coordinator, the program focuses on murals (funded by tax dollars) but only in business areas, while volunteers paint over the handiwork of vandals elsewhere. There is hope that beauty will encourage friends to snitch on friends.

Question: Why should each neighborhood take "the anti-graffiti issue into its own hands"? Answer: Because graffiti is a game of Hide-n-Seek. Most vandals know how to remain outside the reach of the law. With no accountability for bad behavior, graffiti multiplies. Problem is, City policy guarantees that prosecution for graffiti vandalism is rare. So, neighborhoods must fend for themselves.

The solution is simple: Allow some graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as an offense, much like a parking ticket. Then, make those vandals account for bad behavior in an informal hearing. Kids appear in Juvenile Court with a parent, and records are never public. Adults appear in a civil proceeding, where records are public. Either way, Restorative Justice programs are an option.

Cop haters argue that immunity for graffiti vandals is justified because police are prone to harass innocent kids. Truth is quite the reverse. A judge - not a cop - decides guilt, by demanding a high standard of proof from the cops. Keep in mind, no one is above the law.

South Minneapolis is a cesspool of graffiti. Elected officials and wannabes refuse to even consider an open dialogue on how to draw parents into the graffiti solution.

Let neighborhoods rot? Is that our destiny?

The Graffiti Task Force,
Ward 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Request for a public hearing

What follows is the email sent 26 May 2009, with copies to the Mayor, Council Members and all candidates:

- - - - - -

Council Member Don Samuels, Chair
Committee on Public Safety and Regulatory Services

Please consider this a request for a public hearing to explore ways to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis.

City policy now requires ALL graffiti offenses to be prosecuted as a crime. Such a policy ensures that graffiti remains a game of Hide-n-Seek, for which the City Attorney is ill equipped. Not surprising, according to the City Attorney, prosecution for graffiti "crimes" is rare. Hence, most graffiti vandals are free to operate outside the reach of the law.

Both the U.S. Supreme Court (1979) and the Minnesota Supreme Court (1993) allow rules of evidence to be simplified if graffiti tags are treated not as a "crime" but as a civil offense. In such a case, hearings may be less formal, much like resolving a parking ticket or deciding a civil matter in conciliation court. Think in terms of a civil proceeding, respect for liberty, high standard of proof, simplified procedure and due regard for legitimate concerns of the state.

Solving the graffiti menace requires a change in City policy. The end result would involve a transfer of enforcement for SOME graffiti offenses from the City Attorney to the Chief of Police. Such a change in policy merits a public discussion before your committee. Residents need a forum to discuss current graffiti policies openly, in public testimony, and to offer lawful alternatives.

I would like to meet with you to explain in greater detail why an open dialogue on how to solve the graffiti problem would serve the best interests of the City.

The Graffiti Task Force,
Ward 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Minneapolis City Convention

On 16 May 2009, Minneapolis held it 2009 Citywide Convention. The resolution approved by the Ward 10 Convention was moved and seconded.

Arguments in favor stressed how the resolution attempts to draw parents into the graffiti solution. It applies mostly to minor graffiti offenses and does not take sides on pending legislation.

According to the City Attorney, prosecution for graffiti crimes is rare [see p. 2]. That's because City policy allows most graffiti vandals to remain outside the reach of the law. It is our duty to ask "why?". We, the adults, need to reject intimidation, choosing instead to discuss graffiti policies openly, in public testimony.

A spirited debate ensued. Opponents called for a quorum. Absence of a quorum prevented a vote on the motion.

At the Ward 10 Convention, the Mayor offered to ask his staff to arrange a meeting with him and the City Attorey to discuss the issue. Staff did not follow-up on his offer.

At the City Convention, the Mayor was asked about the lack of follow-up to his offer. He instructed an aide to make the arrangements. Time will tell.

The Graffiti Task Force,
Ward 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Censorship

E-Democracy.org claims to be "The Civil Online Town Hall". For Minneapolis, it's "A place to discuss local-level Minneapolis civic issues". Childish insults are often thrown at the Mayor and other elected officials, while legitimate discussion of issues affecting the politics of Ward 10 are censored.

The post below was deleted 2 May 2009 by David Brauer, E-Democracy Forum Manager. "I'm a censor," he bragged. 

I heard a rumor that Rep. Frank Hornstein and Rep. Jeff Hayden are refusing to support the endorsed candidate for Council in the 10th Ward. Does anyone know if that is true? If true, why not?

Both represent parts of the 10th Ward, so it would be very strange for elected DFL officials to work against an endorsed candidate.

The Graffiti Task Force,
Ward 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Another example of censorship by David Brauer, E-Democracy Forum Manager:

In the list of All posts in the topic Graffiti - a healthy debate, four are identified. Conspicuously absent is the post that started the discussion (31 August 2009).

Ward 10 Convention

Precinct 10-5 adopted the following resolution in March and referred it to the Ward 10 Convention, which approved it Saturday, 18 April 2009.

- - -
Resolved:
We urge the City Council to support the efforts of Senator Linda Berglin to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis.
- - -

Senator Berglin knows from experience that parents hold a key to solving the graffiti problem. That's why she introduced Senate File 194.[1] The bill follows the road map crafted by the U.S. Supreme Court - civil proceeding, respect for liberty, high standard of proof, simplified procedure, and due regard for legitimate concerns of the state.[2] The Minnesota Supreme Court concurred.[3]

According to the Mayor, graffiti is a "tough issue." What he should say is, the menace is worse today than when he took office eight years ago. Sadly, it "costs the city and its property owners $2.5 million annually",[4] accomplishing nothing.

To a thinking people, S.F. 194 is a no-brainer: punish vandals, not victims or taxpayers. The General Membership of the Lyndale Neighborhood Association approved unanimously Senator Berglin's efforts to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis years ago (23 April 2007). Nevertheless, requests for a public hearing to discuss the bill consistently fall on deaf ears. Why? The grupthink of the majority party defies the U.S. Supreme Court (see poll results).

The minority party, harbors an open mind (see poll results), a willingness to explore decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mayor R.T. Rybak attended the Ward 10 Convention. He offered to cooperate with the minority party in its request for a public hearing. Meeting jointly with the Mayor and City Attorney is a promised first step. Letting legal scholars debate arguments for and against S.F. 194 (see pro/con matrix) at a public hearing is an obvious second step.

S.F. 194 allows a police investigator who is not an eye-witness to present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti. Synergy, the element missing from current City policy, is what draws parents into the graffiti solution.

The Graffiti Task Force,
Ward 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

- - - - -
[1] Originally S.F. 587 (session 2007). Objections of the City Attorney were addressed and incorporated by Senate Counsel into S.F. 3760 (session 2008), which was re-introduced as S.F. 194 (session 2009-2010).
[2] Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 431, 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 995 S.Ct. 1805 (1970)
[3] State v. Alpine Air products, 500 N.W.2d 788, 790 (Minn. 1993)
[4] Tom Horgen. "Leaving their mark across the metro," Star Tribune, 14 Oct. 2006, p. A8

A self-inflicted wound

The graffiti menace in Minneapolis is self-inflicted. For decades, hard data has proven that the City's policy of charging ALL graffiti offenses as a "crime" is a failure. The city sees "more than 175,000 new tags, or graffiti markings, every year."[1] Not just this year, or last, but for several decades. Offenses referred to the City Attorney for prosecution "are just a very small percentage of the total number of incidents of graffiti."[2]

The U.S. Supreme Court offers a solution.[3] Prosecute SOME graffiti offenses in a civil proceeding. Hence, if the charge is not a crime, the rules of proof may be simplified. The Minnesota Supreme Court concurs.[4]

Senator Linda Berglin introduced a bill to eradicate graffiti in Minneaolis.[5] The bill follows the road map crafted by the U.S. Supreme Court - civil proceeding, respect for liberty, high standard of proof, simplified procedure, and due regard for legitimate concerns of the state. It allows a police investigator who is not an eye-witness to present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti.

The General Membership of Lyndale Neighborhood Association (LNA) endorsed unanimously Senator Berglin's efforts to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis. Nevertheless, the Mayor and Council defy the U.S. Supreme Court. Ditto for House DFLers who represent the Lyndale neighborhood, ignoring grass-roots support for Senator Berglin's graffiti bill.

Why do elected officials cling to a policy that is a proven failure over several decades? When costs to the taxpayers exceed $2.5+ million yearly?[6] When the City and land owners suffer hard financial times? When crime is increasing and streets remain in disrepair?

Elected officials offer no explanation. Instead, the City Attorney is instructed to enforce a policy that allows vandals to inflict damage to property at will. Worse, neighborhood executives, and city employees posing as neighborhood leaders, are offered hush money to distract attention away from a problem that worsens each day. Why?

Senator Berglin's graffiti bill is a no-brainer: Punish vandals, not victims or taxpayers. Making graffiti an expensive habit is the only language that vandals understand.

The Graffiti Task Force
of the Lyndale neighborhood
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

- - - - -
[1.] Sara Schweid. "Time allowed for graffiti cleanup halved," Minnesota Daily, 24 May 2006, p. 10
[2.] Susan L. Segal, City Attorney. Email to Mayor et al., 11 march 2009.
[3.] Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 431, 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 995 S.Ct. 1805 (1979)
[4.] State v. Alpine Air products, 500 N.W.2d 788, 790 (Minn. 1993)
[5.] Originally S.F. 587 (session 2007). Objections of the City Attorney were addressed and incorporated by Senate Counsel into S.F. 3760 (session 2008), which was re-introduced as S.F. 194 (session 2009-2010).
[6.] Tom Horgen. "Leaving their mark across the metro," Star Tribune, 14 Oct. 2006, p. A8

Hush Money

All tools in the arsenal have an impact on the graffiti problem. In the end, though, making graffiti an expensive habit is the only language that vandals understand.

Prosecutions for graffiti are rare. The City Attorney admits it. A policy decision by the Mayor and Council ensures it. Ergo, graffiti vandals remain outside the reach of the law. Out of site, out of mind.

The General Membership of Lyndale Neighborhood Association endorsed unanimously Senator Linda Berglin's efforts to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis. Her bill is supported by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court. It allows a police investigator who is not an eye-witness to present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti.

Rather than making graffiti vandals accept consequences for bad behavior, City Hall harasses victims. Now it also proposes to punish the taxpayers. An email bragged recently, "Micro grants of up to $10,000 per project are being made available to communities and community-based organizations that target graffiti in innovative ways."

Are "Micro-Grants" free help? Or are they hush money?

HINT: How to make vandals accept consequences for bad behavior is not offered as an agenda item. Not by the Mayor or City Council, not by the City Attorney, not by those who represent the Lyndale neighborhood (Frank Hornstein and Jeff Hayden), and not by the "Innovative community microgrants" program.

In 2006, the Star Tribune reported, "The cleanup costs the city and its property owners $2.5 million annually." Costs increase annually, yet the free-ride policy for vandals merits support with hush money. Why?

It's time for neighborhood executives to do the bidding of the membership. Insist that elected leaders support Senator Berglin's graffiti bill. It's a no-brainer: Punish vandals, not victims or taxpayers.

The Graffiti Task Force
of the Lyndale neighborhood
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Grass-roots support

Landowners in the 10th ward are working with Senator Linda Berglin to amend Minnesota's graffiti statute. The General Membership of Lyndale Neighborhood Association endorsed unanimously Senator Berglin's efforts to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis.

Despite grass-roots support, those who represent the Lyndale neighborhood - Jeff Hayden and Frank Hornstein - refuse to introduce Senator Berglin's graffiti bill into the House. Their refusal to support the Lyndale neighborhood ensures that Senator Berglin's graffiti bill is denied a public hearing. The will of the voters is silenced while an election is in play.

Senator Berglin's graffiti bill will force vandals to accept consequences for bad behavior. The penalty is a fine, much like a parking ticket. However, court records are open to the public. Civil lawsuits would be made much simpler for victims who choose to sue. Triple damages and attoney fees are allowed by law. The sting will very quickly make graffiti an expensive habit.

The City Attorney rarely prosecutes a graffiti offense. The reason is simple. The City Attorney insists that ALL graffit offenses must be charged as a crime. Problem is, all prosecutions for a crime include a threat of incarceration. When incarceration is threatened, the U.S. Constitution requires an eye witness to convict. That makes graffiti a game of Hide-n-Seek for which the Office of City Attorney is ill equipped.

Senator Berglin's bill levels the playing field. It removes the threat of incarceration. A police investigator who is not an eye witness may then present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti. Investigative police officers have access to search warrants and snitch money. They would use the same tools that have enabled the courts to convict criminals of all flavors since the founding of the democracy.

The premise underlying Senator Berglin's graffiti bill is approved by both the U.S. Supreme Court and Minnesota Supreme Court. Making graffiti an expensive habit is the only way to solve the problem.

The Graffiti Task Force
of the Lyndale neighborhood
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

The sky is falling

A proposal to improve the criminal justice system is pending in the Minnesota legislature. It would reduce panalties for some crimes. Mostly, it's an attempt to save costs and to reduce the numbers of people held in jail or supervised by probation staff. For example, some offenses which are currently charged as a misdemeanor crime would be reduced to a petty misdemeanor, which is not a crime. The penalty would be a fine, much like a parking ticket.

City Hall is alarmed. Neighborhoods, and anyone who will listen, are told that "The Mayor and City Council members are very concerned about the impact of this proposal." They argue that, because the bill changes some mandatory minimums for repeat offenders, neighborhood should fear for their safety.

Truth is, some "crimes" should be charged as an petty misdemeanor. Graffiti is a good example.

The City Attorney told the Mayor and Council recently, "We know that the number of cases presented to our Office ... are just a very small percentage of the total number of incidents of graffiti." In plain language, it's an admission that prosecutions for graffiti offenses are rare. The question is, why?

The answer is simple, obvious and expensive. The City Attorney insists that ALL graffiti offenses must be charged as a crime. Such a policy is not pre- ordained by the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, that policy is approved by the Mayor and Council. It's a costly policy, accomplishing nothing.

In 2006, the Minnesota Daily reported, "Graffiti is a growing problem in Minneapolis, according to Sgt. Donna Olson, a graffiti investigator with the Minneapolis Police Department, who said the city sees more than 175,000 new tags, or graffiti markings, every year." Later that year, the Star Tribune reported, "The cleanup costs the city and its property owners $2.5 million annually." Costs increase annually, yet the policy prevails. Why?

All crimes threaten incarceration. Unfortunately, when incarceration is threatened (i.e., loss of liberty), the U.S. Constitution requires an eye witness to convict. That makes graffiti a game of Hide-n-Seek for which the Office of City Attorney is ill equipped.

A better solution is to charge SOME graffiti offenses as a petty misdemeanor. That removes the threat of incarceration. A police investigator who is not an eye witness may then present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti. Investigative police officers have access to search warrants and snitch money. They would use the same tools that have enabled courts to convict criminals of all flavors since the founding of the democracy.

Senator Linda Berglin introduced a bill to amend Minnesota's graffiti statute. It would allow SOME graffiti offenses to be charged as a petty misdemeanor. The premise underlying Senator Berglin's graffiti bill is approved by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The City Attorney opposes Senator Berglin's graffiti bill. Opposition ensures that the bill will receive no public hearing. What was the reason given to the Mayor and Council? "Probation supervision is a valuable tool in that it enables monitoring of the terms of a criminal sentence, and it is not available for petty offenders."

That sounds like a full-employment gambit for lawyers. Worse, it proves that the graffiti menace in Minneapolis is self-inflicted -- by the very ones who claim to be "very concerned about the impact of this proposal."

The Graffiti Task Force
of the Lyndale neighborhood
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

The graffiti menace

Landowners in the 10th ward of Minneapolis, Minnesota, are working to eradicate graffiti. Senator Linda Berglin agreed to introduce Senate File 194, right. The General Membership of the Lyndale Neighborhood Association endorsed unanimously Senator Berglin's continuing efforts to eradicate graffiti.[1]

Graffiti taggers are a menace throughout Minneapolis. In 2006, according to Sgt. Donna Olson, graffiti investigator with the Minneapolis Police Department, "the city sees more than 175,000 new tags, or graffiti markings, every year."[2] Cleanup "costs the city and its propery owners $2.5 million annually."[3] Yet, the City Attorney admitted to the Mayor and Council, "We know that the number of cases presented to our Office ... are just a very small percentage of the total number of incidents of graffiti."[4]

Prosecutions for graffiti offenses are rare, even when those who oppose graffiti are attacked.[5] Why can so may graffiti vandals do so much damage to property with so little fear of the law? The reason is simple. When incarceration is threatened, the U.S. Constitution requires an eye witness to convict. That makes it a game of Hide-n-Seek for which the Office of City Attorney is ill equipped.

- - - - -
[1] 23 April 2007. Initially, Senator Berglin introduced Senate File 587 (session 2007). Concerns raised by the City Attorney were addressed and incorporated by Senate Counsel into Senate File 3760 (session 2008), which was re-introduced as Senate File 194 (session 2009-2010).
[2] Sara Schweid. "Time allowed for graffiti cleanup halved," Minnesota Daily, 24 May 2006, p. 10
[3] Tom Horgen. "Leaving their mark across the metro," Star Tribune, 14 Oct. 2006, p. A8
[4] Susan L. Segal, City Attorney. Email to Mayor et al., 11 march 2009.
[5] Steve Brandt. "Fight against tagging leads to graffiti attack on Fairy Godmother," Star Tribune, 12 July 2007, p. B4